RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION (represented by MA PUI TUNG) v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION (represented by MA PUI TUNG) v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT

The originating summonses were struck out as an abuse of process because the matters raised had been and could have been disposed of by prior judicial review applications; Order 18 rule 19 is a valid procedural tool and not unconstitutional; Mr Ma, as the creator and principal actor in the litigation and representative of the unincorporated Association, must bear costs personally; Mr Ma and the Association are adjudged vexatious and a Restricted Proceedings Order under Practice Direction 11.3 is made requiring leave before commencing proceedings.

Citation
RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION (represented by MA PUI TUNG) v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Right to Inherent Dignity Movement Association; 2nd Plaintiff / Representative of the Association: Ma Pui Tung; Plaintiff (named in Originating Documents): Officer of the HKSAR Court; 1st Defendant: HKSAR Government; 2nd Defendant: The Council of the Law Society
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2009
Case Number
HCMP2332/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Originating Summons (hcmp) Applications Arising From Public Law Challenges / Hearing in Chambers Appeal From Master; Final Judgment and Orders Made
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; three originating summonses struck out; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Ma Pui Tung and the Right to Inherent Dignity Movement Association.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigant, Restrictive Proceedings Order (practice Direction 11.3), Costs, Order 18 Rule 19, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Abuse of Process Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Proceedings Order (practice Direction 11.3) Costs +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Right to Inherent Dignity Movement Association

1st Plaintiff

Ma Pui Tung

2nd Plaintiff / Representative of the Association

Officer of the HKSAR Court

Plaintiff (named in Originating Documents)

HKSAR Government

1st Defendant

The Council of the Law Society

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Originating Summons (hcmp) Applications Arising From Public Law Challenges / Hearing in Chambers Appeal From Master; Final Judgment and Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the originating summonses disclosed a reasonable cause of action or were an abuse of process given prior judicial review decisions
  2. 2 Whether the correct procedure for the issues raised was judicial review rather than private proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Order 18 rule 19 is unconstitutional or incompatible with Article 14 ICCPR

Ratio Decidendi

The originating summonses were struck out as an abuse of process because the matters raised had been and could have been disposed of by prior judicial review applications; Order 18 rule 19 is a valid procedural tool and not unconstitutional; Mr Ma, as the creator and principal actor in the litigation and representative of the unincorporated Association, must bear costs personally; Mr Ma and the Association are adjudged vexatious and a Restricted Proceedings Order under Practice Direction 11.3 is made requiring leave before commencing proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; three originating summonses struck out; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Ma Pui Tung and the Right to Inherent Dignity Movement Association.

Orders

  • Originating summonses HCMP2060/2008, HCMP2121/2008 and HCMP2332/2008 struck out (appeal dismissed).
  • Costs ordered to defendants against Ma Pui Tung personally in HCMP2060/2008, HCMP2121/2008 and HCMP2332/2008, to be taxed on a gross sum assessment basis by a Master of the High Court if not agreed.